But really, do we need faster performance at 1024x768 when you are already getting 100+ frames per second on most games? I am sure there are people that say they "feel" the sluggishness when they are running less than 100 fps, but like me I feel most people think otherwise. Improving 1600x1200 resolution fps is more worth it.

It is much harder to extract parallelism for general purpose applications that CPUs are used for. Graphics are easier to parallelize. Therefore, this multi-core CPU thing should do a lot more than before if the programmers take advantage of it. Reply

quote:Youre correct. However, shipping and launching are definitely not the same (particularly for graphics companies). Keep in mind too the dates are just slightly fudged too - usually they launch 3 or 4 cards at a time; you'll have to read in between the lines there.

quote: Youre correct. However, shipping and launching are definitely not the same (particularly for graphics companies). Keep in mind too the dates are just slightly fudged too - usually they launch 3 or 4 cards at a time; you'll have to read in between the lines there.

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that the highend will be paper launched? So the low end will launch later but ship first? If so just drop the cloak and dagger routine....it is just muddying the water. Reply

Did someone really complain that these cards are not getting faster fast enough.
Thats crazy. Don't blame it on the cards blame it on games with not so great graphics, blame the damn programmers. All they have to do is program graphics anymore. All the levels, storyline and AI is all the same. So gaming companies take 2 year to redo what, the graphic engine, only to do that poorly. The CPU is not holding up any of FPS, and these cards that are out now are over kill for any other type of games. Can't believe people want more speed. Give me the same or less speed at a real price. The fact that graphic cards are costing more then whole systems is crazy. Who the hell needs 1600x1200 at 120 FPS, with all the goodies on. You either play the game hardcore and don't have time to see the "neat" stuff or you play slow and watch the damn sunset. People have offical lost it. Reply

its good to hear at least something about R520. Personally I think, after reading the article, that It will have 32 pipes:
Quote:
"R520 could be much different than what was originally speculated. (In fact, we know it is.)"
And originally speculated, were its 24 pipes. Maybe its higher clock speed or something else, but I think it will have 32 Pipes, call me crazy if you want :p
Reply

You mean they just tacked on an extra 8 pipelines, in the middle of their respins to *improve* yields? ;)
Nah, I doubt that.

The comment that it's much different from the original specs doesn't have anything to do with pipelines. There are plenty of things to tweak, and most likely, they've only changed stuff like the targeted clock speed, as well as asvarious low-level stuff that does nothing more than move a few wires and components around to achieve better yields. Reply

ATI is going for higher clockspeeds and less pipelines, a la Intel-style. Nvidia seems to be more liek AMD, going for generally lower clockspeeds but more pipelines...

I don't know about the performance of these GPUs compared to Nvidia's, but I'm almost positive they'll run much hotter...

In the end, it won't matter if these cards are better than Nvidia's if the prices are too high, since ATI is already aggresively cutting prices on their current generation cards and Nvidia's prices are going down, too. Reply

You don't know the costs of implementing a 256bit memory interface, it requires more complex wiring amongs other things that could very well mean that 256bit at 350mhz is more expensive than 128bit at 700mhz.

Now i'm no expert and i don't know which costs more to implement but i doubt ATI would spend more money to produce a card than necessary. Reply

yeah well spotted. RV530 has 128-bit memory, silly to have 512 mb 128 bit memory card cause that will hardly make any difference. I think rv530 is designed to kill the 6600gt cause last year x700 wasnt as good as 6600gt. It will be slower than x800xl or 6800gt. Reply

I'm thinking this card is directly targetted at the 6600GT/6800. If ATI can release RV530 at $199 US, it seems like it could do very well. Of course, specs rarely tell the whole story, but the figures match up fairly well with the 6800. Same memory bandwidth (1400MHz 128-bit vs 700MHz 256-bit) and both 12 pipeline. RV530 would definitely have the core speed advantage (600MHz vs 325MHz), but the speed might be overkill for the memory bandwidth available. Reply

They may have just released a product to compete with the 6600 and 6800, but the specs seem to suggest that it should be faster than a 6800nu and even the 6800GT if the game is gpu limited and not memory bandwith limit. With a fillrate of 7200 a 6800GT would need to run at 450mhz. Reply

Note that is only max memory. That certainly doesn't mean that it will come standard. That just means in a year when the top end cards come standard with 512, they can charge an extra $50 for this low end card with a lot of ram, just like the 6600 with 256 today. Reply

yeah, that struck me as odd too. Could it be that this memory is neccesary for the product to compete? 1.4GHz? On a midrange card? If so, it looks bad for ATI. (But then the 128-bit bus makes no sense)
Or maybe some of the specs got mixed up? That's the only meaningful explanation I can think of. The alternative is that ATI has screwed up big time, which doesn't sound as likely... Reply

Hmm, 12 pipelines on their next-gen midrange card? That's not a lot. Impressive clock speeds though. :)
But given this, I highly doubt the R520 is going to be 32 pipelines like some have guessed. 24 sounds more likely. And then it won't be the uber-powerful G70 killer that ATI fans keep hoping for. (Ok, I'm not saying it'll be slower either, at those clock speeds, it seems like it could be a powerful beast still, but I highly doubt it's going to really destroy the G70)

Am I the only one seeing a similarity to Prescott here? Too much focus on extreme clock speeds, at the cost of an efficient design? (Of course, it's too early to judge actual performance, but we know they're going to need a dual-slot design, while NVidia has actually cut down drastically on heat output with the G70.)

And sheeesh, an october launch on the R520 cards? ATI, I'm not impressed. NVidia is getting one hell of a head start here. Reply

Well I hope this will get ATI on track. Be optimistic. But let's hope this won't be a paper launch. On paper these products always look great, but who knows what will happen now. I bought my 7800GT, but I won't be looking back. If ATI buys NV tomorrow, I will not cry. Reply

I bought an X800XL yesterday (off eBay) and I had a minor heartattack when I saw the title of this article! Though I stand by my decision, as there's no way that the R520 XL card will be released as cheaply as you can get X800XLs today, and the RV530/515 cards don't look comparable in performance to the XL... Reply

Here's hoping the R520 will be a killer, much faster than 7800GTX. I personally feel that GPUs are not advancing quickly enough. ATI had better release real monsters to make up for the very late launch. Reply

GPUs aren't advancing quickly enough!? What about processors? The 7800GTX only benefits relative to many other cards at 1600x1200 or higher resolutions, and SLI doesn't even do that some times. Perhaps if we had even faster GPUs for the mainstream we'd see games increase in graphical complexity, but the CPU is really hurting performance in the latest games when you run G70 cards. Reply